Let me get this straight. Obama is taking the advice of Senior Military Officials and implementing the policies that the Military think are responsible and Sessions and Shelby are criticizing those Same Senior Military Officials.

I thought the Republican position was to respect the advice of the Military?

Posted by skippy38 on 09/17/09 at 2:34PM
This from the "Right Wing" press:

VIENNA -- Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog agree that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

skippy33--

This has nothing to do with the defensive shield in Europe. Trying to blow up a Nuclear Bomb in our atmosphere before it hits land doesn't solve anything. It just spreads the radiation farther and wider.

The only good would be if you could get the rocket outside the atmosphere out in space and that's not the kind of technology being discussed here.

For those wondering who the Senior Military Personel were that advised Obama on the tactical shift in defense it was Sec of Defense Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

From Times Online:

Instead, after a comprehensive review, he had decided to accept the advice of both the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and of the Chiefs of Staff opt for a "smarter, stronger and swifter" system involving both sea-based and land-based mobile interceptors.

Let's see, Gates was the guy that turned around the war in Iraq and was nominated by George W Bush to be his Sec of Defense.

It seems Obama is listening to a unanimously approved Sec of Defense by Congress.

I don't think that it is Obama who is playing politics with this decision. It seems it's a bunch of Republican Senators who are playing politics. Ironically, it was George Bush who went against the wishes of the Defense Department and Secretary Gates in wanting to put the land based missile defense system in Eastern Europe in the first place.

But of course, Secretary Gates wanted a Smarter Defense System -- Bush just wanted a bigger system.

You can buy into the Republican Ravings all you want. However, being in favor of putting the missile system that both Obama and Sec. Gates want is far from being liberal. It is simply being pragmatic and making the correct choice.

You are correct that Obama is the Commander in Chief. But when top military support the Commander's decision and you call the Commander Communist you are indeed calling the entire military Communist.

Sorry you are so blinded by your politics and are ignorant to the truth.

If any Republican would have made this wise decision the entire Republican party would be behind it. They just oppose it because their only idea is to oppose Obama on everything. They don't have any other ideas at all.

As far as Acorn goes, no, I wouldn't take money that was passed in a budget meant for Non-Military Spending and then send it to the Military. That would be Unconstitutional.

Now, not only are you calling the entire Military Communists, you don't even believe in the Constitution.

To your first paragraph. The missile system Bush wanted to put in Eastern Europe had a few problems. One, if would be over 7 years before the system would be in place. Two, the long range missile system has never been proven to and has failed in virtually every means in Military Testing. Two, if a Nuclear Ballistic is ever fired from Iran towards Eastern Europe and you could somehow get the Missile Defense System to actually work you've still got problems. Yes, you could theoretically shoot it down and keep it from exploding over it's target but the result is you've exploded the Nuclear Weapon in our Atmosphere spreading the radiation further and wider over not just Eastern Europe but Europe as well.

The system that Obama and the US Military prefers is a system that has been proven to work, is able to be deployed now and is actually a system that is capable of deterring Iran's current weapons now. Why would a President choose to deploy a system that doesn't work and doesn't work for the conditions we already face today over a system that does work and is suited to current needs? Well, Obama chose the wise choice and is putting in the system that works. Bush wanted the system that doesn't work for two reasons, one to try and use fear as a weapon and because of the entire republican party's cozy relationships with defense contractors. Sessions and Shelby and Bush just want to line the pockets of their buddies: Obama is actually trying to protect people now.

To your second paragraph. Perhaps Obama has already gotten something out of it. Russia is opening the markets more and more to the world and American Business are in Russia today. But never mind that, the point is that Obama made the right decision on the type of missile shield no matter what else he could have gotten out of the deal.

Your third paragraph. Our STAR WARS Missile system isn't state of the art because it doesn't work. We don't have the technology to pull it off yet. Russia's missile defense system would be far behind ours and is just a political response to America's.

Your final paragraph. Well, you aren't blatantly throwing the Communist label around anymore but you sure are implying it.

Guess what, I've read my WWII history and so has Obama. I'm sure he's listening to his fine Secretary of Defense, a republican, who was elected unanimously by congress. You might hate government and fear every decision but your hate and fear are not based in reality. It's based in sensational political double speak by the Republican Party.

Bottom line, you are supporting a system that doesn't work and that wouldn't be in place for 7 to 10 years and then still wouldn't work over a plan that does work, is ready now and has the support of the Military!

Wow! George W and Obama have more in common than meets the eye -- except for that tan, that is.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Good for Cathy Maples! You can complain about this, I guess, but the Ride 2 Recovery program seems to be a great program. It's gathering scores of Veterans who have been wounded (I'm sure many with artificial limbs) and giving them physical rehabilitation in a very creative way. While they are rebuilding their bodies they get to be surrounded by fellow Veterans with the same problems and together they can begin to heal their psychological problems caused by the war. I find that wonderful.

Isn't it the same thing that Ted Kennedy, Jr. said at his father's memorial after battling cancer and coming home with an artificial leg? Faced with climbing to the top of a big hill so he and his father could slid down that hill on a sled, his father said:

"I know you can do it. There is nothing that you can’t do. We’re going to climb that hill together, even if it takes us all day."

Sounds like the exact same thing is going on with this program. I think it's wonderful and congrats and thank you Cathy Maples for your support of our Veterans. There’s more than just one way to make a difference.

NOW, the real problem is when Cathy Maples shows up in Alaska after paying her own way, will Sarah Palin show up or simply say "I never agreed to do this diner thing. It was never confirmed."